Bigger nations must have more problems!

[TheMeInTeam]

Was one of those decisions Admin efficiency?

No, that one isn't self-inconsistent the way the stated reasons for move-lock, initial implementation of corruption, and especially primitive ship nerf were. Same for pre-cossack horde changes (though that was probably just $$$ moves to set up DLC ). You might not agree with the admin efficiency change, but it's not patently absurd like the misalignment between stated reasoning and reality for those.

They actually put some effort into making corruption an interactable mechanic since then. Move lock works, even though it didn't do what they said and never could have. New world starts remain hosed for several years now, in the worst kind of way (they made it easier to play them, but with nearly-guaranteed more waiting around. Why? No idea).

The criteria depend from mechanic to mechanic.

No, that's exactly how you lead to self-inconsistent rationale. If you're establishing some criteria for how to approach history vs gameplay, it needs to be self-consistent. You don't get good mechanics by saying that x needs to be perfectly historical, y needs to be somewhat historical, then z is fantasy all "because RAISINS". That's not how effective logic works .

I made a proposal for that already. Make Absolutist governments more fragile, like they were in history. You don't even read my posts man...

That's not an actual mechanic interaction. It doesn't even come with obvious anticipated consequences. How do players play around it? No idea, because there's no mechanic there.

Coalitions did exist during the EU timeframe, during the Napoleonic wars.

0 historical examples of how coalitions work in-game. That's what I said, and it is objective fact. Napoleonic coalitions did things you can't do in the game outright.

That places is in perfectly identical territory to WC: didn't happen, and game interacts inconsistently with how nations in history did. If you're fine with one and not the other, you need a good reason why to build a convincing argument...not to pretend otherwise.

It is one thing to make a large empire, it is another when you take half of Ming in a single war and not make the entire world want to rip your guts out because of late game mechanics.
Calm your ego.

So are you saying that you should be able to take half of Ming w/o a big coalition? You have to be, right? That doesn't seem to fit your dialogue to this point though...

There are many ways that large empires can be nerfed without overhauling the engine

Same for other mechanics, which you're STILL not giving differentiating criteria by the way.

 

[cristofolmc]

Welcome to EUIV and its casual fanbase. They tried to do this with corruption and people whinned so much about it because they couldnt paint the map they had to nerf it down to at its now. Nothing. In EU vanilla you never heard from corruption nor have any issues with it. Less so when you are a bigger nation when you can pay it off. So its actually the opposite. Yo u might need to take a few corruptiom points in exchange of money or in a series of events because you cant affort the stability hit or money loss at the beginning of the game. Once you have snowballed corruption becomes a non-issue. Which doesn't make any sense. Corruption should hit harder the bigger you expand. But sadly the fan base of this game has become a bunch of casuals who want EUIV to play risk and not to be a Grand Strategy and they dont want any inconvinience in order to paint the pretty map, thus ruining the game, specially late game.

And the same goes with many other features they nerf 70%. The Estates? Same things. Were supposed to be an internal politics thing to make the game more challening and fun (to enhance peace time as well) but they ended up like everything in Buttons Universalis IV, 3 buttons to milk monarch points once in a while and an some advisors. Thank god for M&T for making something useful and fun to play with.

But then they complain the game past 1650 is boring. Give me a break xd.

So instead of making a good challenging realistic games, those of us who want that have to use mods when it should be the other way around. Those who want an unchallening easy casual game to unralistically paint a map Risk-like, should use mods that nerf the game 90%.
But hey that apparently doesn't sell so well.

But it'd be nice if at least they stopped calling it Grand Strategy. Civ 5 and 6 are more challenging than EU nowadays xd

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Welcome to EUIV and its casual fanbase. They tried to do this with corruption and people whinned so much about it because they couldnt paint the map they had to nerf it down to at its now. Nothing. In EU vanilla you never heard from corruption nor have any issues with it. Less so when you are a bigger nation when you can pay it off. So its actually the opposite. Yo u might need to take a few corruptiom points in exchange of money or in a series of events because you cant affort the stability hit or money loss at the beginning of the game. Once you have snowballed corruption becomes a non-issue. Which doesn't make any sense. Corruption should hit harder the bigger you expand. But sadly the fan base of this game has become a bunch of casuals who want EUIV to play risk and not to be a Grand Strategy and they dont want any inconvinience in order to paint the pretty map, thus ruining the game, specially late game.

And the same goes with many other features they nerf 70%.

But then they complain the game past 1650 is boring. Give me a break xd.

So instead of making a good challenging realistic games, those of us who want that have to use mods when it should be the other way around. Those who want an unchallening easy casual game to unralistically paint a map Risk-like, should use mods that nerf the game 90%.
But hey that apparently doesn't sell so well.

But it'd be nice if at least they stopped calling it Grand Strategy. Civ 5 and 6 are more challenging than EU nowadays xd

What do you have to say about the arguments in this thread? It would be helpful to understand how corruption presently works before saying how it should work too.

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

No, that's exactly how you lead to self-inconsistent rationale. If you're establishing some criteria for how to approach history vs gameplay, it needs to be self-consistent. You don't get good mechanics by saying that x needs to be perfectly historical, y needs to be somewhat historical, then z is fantasy all "because RAISINS". That's not how effective logic works .



That's not an actual mechanic interaction. It doesn't even come with obvious anticipated consequences. How do players play around it? No idea, because there's no mechanic there.



0 historical examples of how coalitions work in-game. That's what I said, and it is objective fact. Napoleonic coalitions did things you can't do in the game outright.

That places is in perfectly identical territory to WC: didn't happen, and game interacts inconsistently with how nations in history did. If you're fine with one and not the other, you need a good reason why to build a convincing argument...not to pretend otherwise.



So are you saying that you should be able to take half of Ming w/o a big coalition? You have to be, right? That doesn't seem to fit your dialogue to this point though...



Same for other mechanics, which you're STILL not giving differentiating criteria by the way.

I am not leading to inconsistent rationale. Some things are hard-coded in the game so they have to be beared, like Monarch Points. Absolutism is not hard-coded to be like this. You can change its values or introduce more meaning to it, more risk. See how two very different things are judged very differently? This is called rational evaluation.

As for Absolutism, you already get it gradually and by various interactions. If you play Prussia or Sweden it is not too hard to reach 100 Absolutism, thanks to flavour. You may have some risk here and there due to Court and Country, but after it passes you pretty much have no drawbacks. How is this ok? You get free Discipline and even more Admin efficiency, making blobbing even easier. Only drawback I can think of is the Revolution, assuming that we can call it a drawback. Added Unrest seems reasonable, especially since the Era of Enlightenment challenged the King's divine right to rule.

I acknowledge that coalitions in EU4 do not behave like anything we had historically, at least anything explicit. But imagine EU4 without them, or the Infamy system. Do you really wanna play such a game? Not to mention it being completely unrealistic. Again, why wouldn't weaker neighbours team up to defend themselves from you, the expansionist? Answer me that.
WC is a whole different story.

You shouldn't be able to annex half of Ming in a single war. And even if you were able to somehow, you should be hated internationally because you are an obvious expansionist. The more I discuss here, the more I actually want EU3's Infamy to return...

Other mechanics are not the topic here. We are discussing blobbing. If you wanna retort, explain how my listed proposals are bad ideas.

I get it now. You like blobbing a lot and don't want it to be nerfed

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

Welcome to EUIV and its casual fanbase. They tried to do this with corruption and people whinned so much about it because they couldnt paint the map they had to nerf it down to at its now. Nothing. In EU vanilla you never heard from corruption nor have any issues with it. Less so when you are a bigger nation when you can pay it off. So its actually the opposite. Yo u might need to take a few corruptiom points in exchange of money or in a series of events because you cant affort the stability hit or money loss at the beginning of the game. Once you have snowballed corruption becomes a non-issue. Which doesn't make any sense. Corruption should hit harder the bigger you expand. But sadly the fan base of this game has become a bunch of casuals who want EUIV to play risk and not to be a Grand Strategy and they dont want any inconvinience in order to paint the pretty map, thus ruining the game, specially late game.

And the same goes with many other features they nerf 70%.

But then they complain the game past 1650 is boring. Give me a break xd.

So instead of making a good challenging realistic games, those of us who want that have to use mods when it should be the other way around. Those who want an unchallening easy casual game to unralistically paint a map Risk-like, should use mods that nerf the game 90%.
But hey that apparently doesn't sell so well.

But it'd be nice if at least they stopped calling it Grand Strategy. Civ 5 and 6 are more challenging than EU nowadays xd

It's not really a majority who are into blobbing, more like a *very* vocal minority, as evidenced by how many people have actually done a WC. If we include non-Steam users and exclude those who do not support the mechanic it should round out to 1%

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am not leading to inconsistent rationale. Some things are hard-coded in the game so they have to be beared, like Monarch Points. Absolutism is not hard-coded to be like this. You can change its values or introduce more meaning to it, more risk. See how two very different things are judged very differently? This is called rational evaluation.

I pointed out that several mechanics you hand-waved away are also not hard-coded and you ignored that.

You also straight up stated that you don't need to apply the standards for history consistently, which *necessarily* results in self-inconsistent logic when then claiming a mechanic should work based on history. You can't be consistent and also not consistent.

How is this ok?

You get monarch points over time too. How is that okay? Or rather, why is absolutism then special?

I acknowledge that coalitions in EU4 do not behave like anything we had historically, at least anything explicit. But imagine EU4 without them, or the Infamy system. Do you really wanna play such a game?

Same goes for disincentives that functionally equalize skill or encourage doing less in the late game.

Not to mention it being completely unrealistic.

Equally realistic to present implementation, which is a pure gameplay mechanic. Sweden didn't give a crap about 1400's wars between Italian minors. They'll send troops to their death over it in the game, and they will flat out refuse separate peace.

But in contrast to some of the ideas here, coalitions were gradually tweaked until they had a decent place in the game, as opposed to necessitated stagnation and punishment without counterplay. They can kill you, but they don't slow you down forever no matter what like a magic force field any longer.

You shouldn't be able to annex half of Ming in a single war.

So you want history but you don't want history, since that statement effectively bars Qing's historical path.

And sure enough, Qing was hated internationally over said conquest no doubt, just like the Mughals were...except that isn't consistent with history, which was your stated reasoning.

We are discussing blobbing. If you wanna retort, explain how my listed proposals are bad ideas.

I get it now. You like blobbing a lot and don't want it to be nerfed

Not only is this intellectually rude, but I've already described plainly why the proposals are bad:

They are self-inconsistent and therefore incoherent.

It's not really a majority who are into blobbing, more like a *very* vocal minority, as evidenced by how many people have actually done a WC. If we include non-Steam users and exclude those who do not support the mechanic it should round out to 1%

That's some pretty hefty abuse of statistical reasoning right there .

Barely more people have played as Naples since its achievement was added than have WC'd. Bit fishy to make conclusions from that...

 

[Karabas1543]

There are two things that should prevent blobbing: internal problems and external pressure.

External pressure already has a mechanic: coalitions. The problem is, coalitions should respond to an imbalance of power in a region, not just to rapid expansion. Currently, slow expansion allows you to blob over time and avoid coalitions, which shouldn't be the case after a certain point.

Internal problems are harder to design in a way that would work nicely, but as people pointed out, we already have rebels, culture, states, and estates - all of these become easier to manage once you have a huge empire, whereas it should be the opposite.

 

[cristofolmc]

It's not really a majority who are into blobbing, more like a *very* vocal minority, as evidenced by how many people have actually done a WC. If we include non-Steam users and exclude those who do not support the mechanic it should round out to 1%
View attachment 326750

Of course they bloody dont do it. Its the more tedious and boring thing ever in gaming. But for some reason people still want to know they CAN easily do it. Obviously anyone with a life gets bored way before. But they still keep asking it xd

 

[Reaper_Zwei]

There are two things that should prevent blobbing: internal problems and external pressure.

External pressure already has a mechanic: coalitions. The problem is, coalitions should respond to an imbalance of power in a region, not just to rapid expansion. Currently, slow expansion allows you to blob over time and avoid coalitions, which shouldn't be the case after a certain point.

Internal problems are harder to design in a way that would work nicely, but as people pointed out, we already have rebels, culture, states, and estates - all of these become easier to manage once you have a huge empire, whereas it should be the opposite.

until what? you cant do anything anymore?

What game mechanics do you have in mind that are more than just punishment for taking lots of land?

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

I pointed out that several mechanics you hand-waved away are also not hard-coded and you ignored that.

You also straight up stated that you don't need to apply the standards for history consistently, which *necessarily* results in self-inconsistent logic when then claiming a mechanic should work based on history. You can't be consistent and also not consistent.



You get monarch points over time too. How is that okay? Or rather, why is absolutism then special?



Same goes for disincentives that functionally equalize skill or encourage doing less in the late game.



Equally realistic to present implementation, which is a pure gameplay mechanic. Sweden didn't give a crap about 1400's wars between Italian minors. They'll send troops to their death over it in the game, and they will flat out refuse separate peace.

But in contrast to some of the ideas here, coalitions were gradually tweaked until they had a decent place in the game, as opposed to necessitated stagnation and punishment without counterplay. They can kill you, but they don't slow you down forever no matter what like a magic force field any longer.



So you want history but you don't want history, since that statement effectively bars Qing's historical path.

And sure enough, Qing was hated internationally over said conquest no doubt, just like the Mughals were...except that isn't consistent with history, which was your stated reasoning.



Not only is this intellectually rude, but I've already described plainly why the proposals are bad:

They are self-inconsistent and therefore incoherent.

Repeat those mechanics I supposedly hand-waved away.

I already discussed this. Some things would require a complete overhaul of the game to be implemented, hence they are tolerated. Of course, we can suggest them for EU5.
Monarch points are a core element of the game. Absolutism isn't. Taking half of Ming in late game isn't. Admin Efficiency isn't. Humanist Ideas aren't.

If you are a good player you will manage the risk vs reward well. Introducing a drawback to Absolutism gives a challenge to the late game and makes it less of a snore to do. Aren't you a high skill player?

I am pretty certain that if Swedish troops are in Italy, it is probably due to something bigger than 2 Minors fighting each other

It took the Manchus 65 years to properly defeat Ming and the breakaway states

Defectors from Delhi helped Babur claim the Sultanate for himself

In EU4 you form the Mughals by fabricating for one province and then taking half the Sultanate. And you are surprised that you get a coalition?

You fail to understand, on purpose or not, that the importance of historical accuracy depends on the difficulty of implementation, the overall reception, balancing and so much more. This is not being inconsistent, this is simply accepting the reality of the situation. A lot of people find Monarch Points to be a silly abstraction. But, they are a core to the game and everything is balanced around them. It is not worth it for Paradox to overhaul EU4 for that, they should rather implement it in EU5

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

That's some pretty hefty abuse of statistical reasoning right there .

Barely more people have played as Naples since its achievement was added than have WC'd. Bit fishy to make conclusions from that...

Not at all. If you don't like it you won't bother with it. And the Ottomans are a relatively straight-forward WC nation. Whilst there may be variety in numbers, the fact that less than 1% of Steam users have done a WC should say something. If you like blobbing, you will pursue the WC. Why wouldn't you?

Editing is a nightmare on my phone so I double post

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You fail to understand, on purpose or not, that the importance of historical accuracy depends on the difficulty of implementation

Wat

 

[cristofolmc]

until what? you cant do anything anymore?

What game mechanics do you have in mind that are more than just punishment for taking lots of land?

When will you stop thinking they are just random punishments for taking land? Its how the real world works. Its how history works. No empire ever has managed to conquer the whole world or the government of the nation become easier as they get more and more massive. NEVER EVER. Quite the opposite. They all collapse. Anything else is fantasy. What game mechanics do I have in mind? There are plenty already. They just need to stop nerfing them to nonexistent.

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

Wat

So when are you gonna start reading my posts properly? I already elaborated on that
It is almost 1am here so I'll hit the hay soon. We'll continue tomorrow if needed

 

[Karabas1543]

until what? you cant do anything anymore?

What game mechanics do you have in mind that are more than just punishment for taking lots of land?

I was talking about making it harder to blob and you're exaggerating it into "not being able to do anything anymore". This implies that easy blobbing is what you play the game for - which is fine, but the OP and many others don't. I'll stay away from "majority/minority" discussions because I have no way of knowing what the majority is.

No, I'm talking about:

1) Making it more challenging to blob, because as it stands it's incredibly easy.

2) Making the game more 3-dimensional by adding more external and internal challenges. Currently, you basically fall into DoW -> take land -> core -> build more trops -> DoW loop.

Also: taking lots of land came with punishment in the real world. It tended to upset others (hence coalitions) and it tended to be hard to maintain. That's why most empires didn't last beyond a few hundred years. Yes, there were exceptions - and I would prefer that the game modeled blobbed nations surviving in the long-term as exceptional.

In terms of mechanics, see the ones I posted above. I don't see them as punishment, I see them a realistic simulation of what it was like to rule a huge empire.

 

[Reaper_Zwei]

I was talking about making it harder to blob and you're exaggerating it into "not being able to do anything anymore". This implies that easy blobbing is what you play the game for - which is fine, but the OP and many others don't. I'll stay away from "majority/minority" discussions because I have no way of knowing what the majority is.

No, I'm talking about:

1) Making it more challenging to blob, because as it stands it's incredibly easy.

2) Making the game more 3-dimensional by adding more external and internal challenges. Currently, you basically fall into DoW -> take land -> core -> build more trops -> DoW loop.

Also: taking lots of land came with punishment in the real world. It tended to upset others (hence coalitions) and it tended to be hard to maintain. That's why most empires didn't last beyond a few hundred years. Yes, there were exceptions - and I would prefer that the game modeled blobbed nations surviving in the long-term as exceptional.

In terms of mechanics, see the ones I posted above. I don't see them as punishment, I see them a realistic simulation of what it was like to rule a huge empire.

My comment was about both the coalition idea and the internal management idea. It suggests that after a certain amount of expansion it would be impossible to expand more without your entire country imploding on you.

As for mechanic's you posted a list of ones that are already in game but other than coalitions didn't list any changes to them. Just that they could be used. That's great but used how? Be specific.

 

[bradles0]

...I had this idea, "WHY NOT USE REBELS". The answer was disappointing and simple....
3) MOST IMPORTANT. The rebels are not allied to you in any way, even though you gave them the funds.
4...Make planned rebels to always be allied to the nation that made them.

use the support rebels CB, now those rebels are your allies

 

[iquabakaner]

My comment was about both the coalition idea and the internal management idea. It suggests that after a certain amount of expansion it would be impossible to expand more without your entire country imploding on you.

Which is what should be happening.

 

[GoatMagic]

I wish EU4 hadn't gone down this path, but it appears the game is already too far gone to salvage, from a development point of view. The game is tailored to a ridiculous degree to never surprise you, the only allowable setbacks to the player are ones they allow to be inflicted upon them. Rebels broadcasting when they will rebel, years in advance, with exactly how many troops they'll have and the balance of troops, matching discipline and all? By increasingly pretending to be a competitive game it has sacrificed immersion and depth. It's also sad to see the vitriolic community responses anytime someone suggests that maybe conquering all of Europe as France by the year 1800 should be a real challenge. Because historicity no longer informs these people, why should the task of conquering Europe be a challenge? So we've reached a point that the standard for being good at the game means that if you start as a strong nation, owning the entire planet in 3 centuries should be a given. Now the developers can't walk it back, and every attempt at getting more of your money means they add new ways to give yourself more advantages to conquer everything.

 

[iquabakaner]

Latecomer to the discussion. Here's just my two cents. If I would give the criteria to what new mechanics should be implemented, my take would be everything historical should be implemented, except for the following:
1. It's not fun. (e.g. the massive depopulation of Americas)
2. It's impossible due to engine restrictions. (e.g. massive overhauls, something that breaks performance)

I don't see how giving more challenges to large blobs would belong to the two.